Have you seen our episode on the Basement of St. Savas Cathedral? if you haven't here's the link! This was our first episode and we are looking forward to many more! May St. Savas be with us all! https://t.co/TMGcjwK9MF pic.twitter.com/ZBZOF7A3Wf— Trisagionfilms (@TrisagionFilms) September 10, 2020
Thursday, September 10, 2020
"As Catholics, let’s have the courage to stand not merely for individual choice or for an ephemeral “neutrality”, but for a full-fledged vision of what is really good for individuals and society." – By @niall_gooch https://t.co/ON8ytbND8y— Catholic Herald (@CatholicHerald) September 8, 2020
Friends, in today’s Gospel, Jesus commands us to love our enemies. It is a Christian conviction that all of that evil is not telling the deepest truth about the enemy.— Bishop Robert Barron (@BishopBarron) September 10, 2020
The deepest truth is that he or she is a child of God, and thus worthy of our love.https://t.co/gl9pSxVWfT pic.twitter.com/JoA3jpXsh9
CWR: A Deeper Context: Overlooked book provides insight into Vatican II debates by Conor Dugan
Why I think there is no better book to help put the Council in context than Robert Royal’s tour-de-force A Deeper Vision: The Catholic Intellectual Tradition in the Twentieth Century.
I don't have a problem with Vatican II being understood primarily as a Ressourcement project of renewal or reform, a project nonetheless affected by other intellectual and "spiritual" trends within the Patriarchate of Rome. But it was a project necessary not for the Church Universal, only the Patriarchate of Rome.
But, now, with Vatican II in the dock, Royal’s book takes on increased importance. He helps put the Council in context and to see the trends that were already at work in the Church prior to the Council and that continued after it closed. In particular, his highlighting of the emphasis on nuptial mysticism—a “theme” that “had long existed in the tradition”—prior to the Council is a key insight. His description of the advances—and hiccups—in biblical studies is another. Still another insight is that pre-Conciliar Catholicism was much more disparate than many want to admit. And many of the Conciliar themes were simply the fleshing out of work that predated the Council. Certainly, after reading Royal’s careful study of 20th century Catholicism, one could not claim that “what the Council produced was not remotely in continuity with the past” or that after the Council there was not “the faintest desire to carry on the Catholic religion as existed before,” as one recent commentator on the Vatican II debates recently put it.
Indeed, to accept the thesis that the Council should be rejected requires a rejection not just of the Council itself, but the work of figures such as Guardini, Chenu, Congar, de Lubac, Ratzinger, and Balthasar. Many traditionalists seem to be fine with this move but they should be clear that they are not asking simply for the Council to be declared anathema but much (or most?) of the 20th century Catholic intellectual tradition to be declared anathema as well. This raises the question of to which date the clock should be reset. 1950? 1940? 1910? Earlier?